Jump to content

Dunabar

Members
  • Content Count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Dunabar last won the day on September 15

Dunabar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

341 Corporal

About Dunabar

  • Rank
    Command Sergeant Major
  • Birthday December 22

Recent Profile Visitors

2,139 profile views
  1. Given that the VAT was mainly focused on Server Stability than anything else, I suspect they will seek to add the server browser later, and they wanted People to play together no matter what regardless of the server ping (because lets be honest, every Player will focus in on the closest server to their home region.) So, lets see what they do with the Closed Beta Test first. If the Server Browser hasn't been added immediately or they haven't said anything about it to be added later. Then I think it would be a good time to start complaining. For now though in my opinion, lets give them some time.
  2. Hopefully it's a later down the road plan. The game would benefit from having a unique or largely unique feature like the Global War Campaign.
  3. Hey Folks Now that I've...largely gotten more or less most of my negative opinions out of the way with the VAT (I may still add more to the list and I also need more time on the VAT to further generate negative/conflicted/positive opinions.) I wanted to start bleeding off some of my negative energy and start working my way towards things I'm feeling a bit more positive towards. But, like any natural progression, I started with the stuff I was negative towards, and now I will progress to the center of the field to touch upon the stuff I'm feeling conflicted about. (Please note: Just because I'm conflicted about these changes now, doesn't mean I cannot be moved from this position. One wrong choice made by the Developers and I will be hostile towards the change even if only slightly. One right choice by the Developers and I will be in favor of the change even if only slightly. Even just more time on the VAT build could be an influence as well, it's truly my least favorite position to be in because of it's inherent chaotic nature.) --- My feedback on the 1st Veteran Alpha Test Links The stuff I did NOT like about it --- #1 - The changes to Weapon Customization So I've been trying to figure out how to best approach this 300 pound pink guerilla in the room. This very clear, very deliberate effort that weakened one of the core foundational strengths of WW3, that of Player customization, but more specifically, Weapon customization itself which has been widely praised by many players. We went years with largely no customization limits beyond the maximum weight limit and it's pretty understandable why the Community would be pretty upset to see it replaced by the Call of Duty pick system. So, if you're someone who has been in favor of unbridled to near unbridled customization in WW3. Yeah, this is very easily something to be upset about and perfectly understandable why you would be. For myself however...I'm rather torn, mainly because I played the old system, grew attached to it, accepted it's faults, and waited for it to be improved/fixed. However, that didn't happen obviously given what the VAT showed us with the Pick X system & Attachments no longer having weight. But, the reason I'm torn about it, is because I think the general goal of the Developers was to simplify the balance, cut back on the Weapon Performance Attachment bloat, worked to prevent "1 meta to rule them all" builds as much as possible, and overall seemed to be trying to encourage players to do one of two things with the new balance; focus your loadout around versatility between lanes of play, or be rather excellent at one lane of play at the cost of flexibility. Am I right in all of this? I don't know. But, personally speaking, I didn't feel hampered when playing the game just because I chose to go without certain attachments. For example my CQC Beryl Notice that there isn't any form of foregrip? In the VAT I did not feel inherently worse off without the grip, but I still had to be mindful I had none of the benefits (nor drawbacks) any of them offered. But, in the live build there was almost never a reason to not use a grip unless- I was trying to maintain a general look I was trying to keep the weight of the weapon down and thus I went without a lower grip or bipod of some sort. In the end though, I want as many playstyles as possible to be viable in this game. I want run & gunners to have attachments that benefit them, I want Campers to have attachments that benefit them, and everyone in between to have their own options. The less attachment bloat there is, the easier it becomes to balance around various playstyles. Maybe in the future we will get even more attachments that do different things from the current ones, but only time can tell there. My main hope above all else though, is that every weapon & attachment will be viable for use so long as the Player using them learns how to best utilize them. Of course if you also take realism into account, you really don't want to load your weapon down with a whole lot of stuff. But, I digress. So, my final feedback response to the Developers would be this- Feedback: I do hope my assumptions are correct (or at least close to correct) on what your plans are for this "Pick X system" and that you all are being very careful with this new approach. To go 2 years of practically unlimited Weapon customization, to suddenly being forced to only pick a predetermined amount of attachments is a rather rough change, especially when it was done to probably the single most widely praised aspect of World War 3. So, I'm not overly happy about this change...But, I'm not going to be outright hostile to it either, if my assumptions prove correct, and we can avoid any one Weapon or group of attachments becoming the flavor of the season that every Meta slave is using. If we can avoid "1 Meta to rule them all" builds in exchange for a fraction of reduced customization options, I think it will be worth it in the long run. But, right now, we're in the short run and only time can tell how this all fully pans out. If I had to make any suggestions at this time,,,I would propose cosmetic only options for Magazines (NOT turning Magazines into a strictly cosmetic option.) So if I wanted to use say..the default 30 round magazine for the Beryl, but wanted a different visual. I would have the stats of the default 30rd magazine, but could choose to make the magazine look like a different 30 round magazine. Example- Magazine AK 30rnd Magazine (Default look) - This determines the stats Cosmetic option 1 - Waffle - This DOES NOT determine the stats Cosmetic option 2 - PMAG - This DOES NOT determine the stats Cosmetic option 3 - Bakelite - This DOES NOT determine the stats Cosmetic option 4 - Slabside - This DOES NOT determine the stats This way you all can keep magazines balanced and players still get their cosmetic visual options (where they can be made of course. Not all Magazines have a large host of different styles.) --- #2 - Field Repair Tool While I am still very happy that we're able to repair Vehicles outside of the Deployment Zone, I think the current system is a little too strong at the moment, especially given how strong Vehicles are right now (which I think is a positive that I will cover in my next post.) If I had to make any changes to how the Repair Tool currently works in game, it would be- Make the Repair Tool only capable of repairing one sub-system on a Vehicle at a time again. Rather than have the sub-systems of the Vehicle gradually repair over time the longer the tool is being used for. Make repairing each sub-system take a different amount of time based upon the sub-system (excluding the general Health of the Vehicle, I will cover this in my next post.) By removing this gradual repair appearance, it will stop Players from being as effective at repairing Vehicles during active engagements with the opposing team, especially opposing Vehicles. (Example) Optics - It should take 10 seconds for the Repair tool to completely repair the optics regardless of the condition the Vehicle's optics are in. --- #3 - New Movement & Animation System With the new Movement & Animation system I'm rather torn with some of the choices made. When directly comparing the old system to the new system, I would say on several fronts the new Movement system is well ahead of the old. However, there are some stuff I personally think need to be worked on more with this new system. Grenade Throwing - While I do suspect it is being worked on, I have to play it safe, and be honest about this. The Grenade Throwing is terrible. It sticks out like a sore thumb with it's exceptionally stiff & robotic looking motion and if I had to prioritize any part of the new movement & animation system for fixing/rework/whatever - it would be the Grenade Throwing for sure. Flat Surface Sliding - We have had sliding in this game for a rather long time time now. But, after seeing it's performance on the VAT, I personally feel the distance a Player could cover through sliding along flat surfaces was exceedingly long, and should be shortened up a bit to make it a little more believable - because right now, it seems like our Characters are almost always sliding on Ice while almost covering a cartoonish distance of ground during the slide. Turbo Sprinting (Double Sprint) - Now this I wish I had focus tested more closely between the different weight classes. But, and I may be wrong about this, the double sprinting seemed to last the same amount of time regardless of the Player's weight class. Again, I may be wrong about this as I didn't focus test it, but it did seem like Turbo Sprinting lasted the same amount of time regardless of the weight class. Next (and this might be something I missed) the UI needs a Stamina bar for the Turbo Sprint and in turn it should not be able to refill till the Player has come to a complete stop. Double Sprint should be a defensive action used very sparingly, not something People just use to get around the map faster because they cannot be bothered to find a Vehicle or are feeling impatient getting to the next fight. Sliding up Surfaces - I had some mix results going on in game. Some surfaces like stairs the slide animation would practically instantly stop (which is good), then there were moments where I seemed to slide right up the steps with no issue. I cannot recall some of the spots right now where this happened, so i can say at the moment is - Maybe take a look at some the ramps/stairways around Moscow & Polyarny that seem to allow longer than usual slide duration. Now to some of the stuff I like about the new system to show why this has reached the conflicted post instead of the "Stuff I DON'T like" post. Sliding down surfaces - If I had to choose one part of the new movement system that I really like, it would be the length of time a Character can slide down a hill for, and seemingly depending on how steep of an angle it is when the slide is activated. To me personally, it makes logical sense, you run at a certain speed while carrying a certain degree of weight, and depending on the angle slope you suddenly choose (or unwillingly choose) to slide down will carry you further than if you slid across a flat surface or stairways. Weapon Animations - A lot of the reload Animations looked exceptionally well, a lot cleaner, and the general functions of the weapons seemed pretty spot on. I may missed a few small details, but overall from what I can tell through my personal experience, everything was looking very good. General Movement - Generally speaking the movement system in the VAT was a lot better than the older system. If I had to raise any complaint about it in general, it would be that it seemed like the Soldier almost felt like they were sliding on ice or were fairly weightless. Take care of those two things and I think the Movement system will be as spot on. Vaulting - Much like above, Vaulting over Objects is a lot better than the older system. But, much like above it feels like it lacks weight and seems to carry almost a "parkouring" feel to it. Though that latter half could also just be me not having focused on the Loadout Weight influence on the Movement system. On the whole though I would say vaulting over objects is a lot better, it just needs some tweaking to feel a little more weighty. Overall in the end I'm torn between the things I like about the new system vs. the things I don't like about the new system. I won't deny it's an improvement over the old system, but not everything about the old system was inherently bad, and ultimately some adjustments to this new system could make it even better (at least in my eyes.) --- #4 - Calling in Vehicles on controlled Objectives Of all the stuff I'm torn on, this is the one I think is an even 50/50 split between liking it & disliking it. Personally, I thought the old system of returning to your Deployment Zone was better for calling in your Vehicles, giving the enemy Team at least a little time to plan on how to deal with the Vehicle, rather than having the Vehicle suddenly get dropped in on their position to decimate them on the charge for an objective. But, at the same time, I would have loved to have seen more Para dropped Vehicles like Strykers, BMD-4s, and the likes that could have been called in on or near the objective points. So I'm pretty much stuck right now on which way calling in Vehicles was the best. --- #5 - Leviathan & Helicopter Drone 3rd person Cameras Now generally speaking the Cameras work just fine. However, there are situations where the Camera will slide under the Leviathan or Helicopter Drone (the latter seeming to happen after it gets Jammed), and it takes a bit for the Camera to reposition itself. I'm not sure how much is intentional vs. how much is unintentional, so I can just say - If this is unintentional, it needs to be looked at. If it's intentional, it needs to be improved so the user can get situated back into proper view easier (unless of course, there is a easy trick for doing this that I missed which is possible!) --- Nothing left at the moment I can think of to post in here. I was really struggling to find places where I was conflicted with the changes, which depending on your outlook is either a good thing or a bad thing. I will post more stuff that I was conflicted about in the VAT if I can think of something else, but right now I think I'm largely just needing to focus more on testing all the different changes a little more closely come the Closed-Beta Test in November.
  4. Okay, now that I have a degree of sleep in me and have given Clusterfield 2042 a fair shake I can reply - I personally wouldn't mind if they added some form of honeycombing, anti-reflective customization stuff to directly counter scope glare. But, I would want to see some techniques in game able to be used to counter it as well, like standing in a darken room away from the window opening, or maybe keeping the Sun to a certain direction that it causes the scope glare/glint to go away. General stuff like that. This way you have two optional paths. You can take the one that requires more skill & knowledge (counter glare/glint techniques), or you can take the path of "I simply don't want to be troubled by this at all" via customization at the cost of taking up a slot.
  5. I'm well aware that stuff isn't new. The new is this Squad Spawn system itself in how it generally operates.
  6. You replied to that part before I could edit it. Curse life for distracting me! *Fist shakes.* --- Further expanded the list. #11 - High Magnification Scope Flashlights (aka Scope Glare/Glint.) #12 - New Squad Spawn System (Largely) #13 - Removal of the Meta Game War Map
  7. Agreed. If it gets to the point we cannot play the current live version because of the servers going belly up, It would be nice to at least play the VAT version. I wouldn't care if all the progression would get wiped again eventually. If anything, it would at least give us more time to test things and develop further opinions upon stuff being added to the overhaul build.
  8. Added more to the post. #8 - RPG Ammo variety being removed #9 - RPG Ammo moved back to the Ammunition bag #10 - The return of those "strategically placed" resupply containers Have to get dinner started, so will be looking to add even more to the list after cooking.
  9. Negatory. Though I personally never (knowingly) experienced People head glitching. Not to say that people were NOT head glitching though mind you.
  10. Thank you! I always try to keep my gripes focused at an opinion level while avoiding trying to speak for others. But, if People share common beliefs with my feedback, I'm happy to let them voluntarily add it to their gripes. So, feel free to do so!
  11. Hey Folks With the initial Veteran Alpha Test over, I wanted to give my thoughts & opinions on the initial Overhaul build of the game. I know we didn't have access to everything, so it's kind of hard to say for sure if everything has been implemented as intended for final design, or if it's more or less just a placeholder / test version / bug, or whatever that is just there to give us a rough idea of what to expect in the future. I'm going to start with the things I didn't like about the Alpha test, then I will create a post about the stuff I'm feeling rather...conflicted towards with the Alpha test, and finally a post over the stuff I actually liked about the Alpha test. I'm doing it this way mainly to cut back on the length of the posts and because I want the last post to go out on a positive note. With that out of the way, lets get started on the stuff I did NOT like about the Alpha Test... --- My feedback on the 1st Veteran Alpha Test Links N/A at this time --- #1 - The (seemingly) removal of "Friendly Fire" when getting in the way of a moving Friendly Vehicle. Starting off simple and I will admit I'm uncertain about this one because I don't know if it's a bug or something intentional. I don't like that we can now (seemingly) just push Friendly Soldiers away with Vehicles while we're driving them. While I do NOT encourage People to recklessly Team Kill their allies, Friendly Fire is a feature of this game, and one does not simply get hit by a massive war machine and walk it off like it was just a light pillow strike. I'm hoping this is just a bug and not the start of the gradual...softening of the WW3 Gameplay. I understand some players do not like Friendly Fire in their video games, but to me it adds to the immersion of the gameplay, and for me immersion is very, very important. If softening up WW3's gameplay is in it's future, I do NOT want to be part of that softer experience, I will want to see a Hardcore/Authentic/Realistic/whatever game mode for Players like me who actually like the hardcore elements of the game. --- #2 - The Kill Cam If I had to remove one thing from this build above all else, it would be this stupid Kill Cam. The reason for why I would remove this "feature" of the game is simply because of the core design philosophy behind WW3's gunplay (at least what I think is still the design philosophy anyways.) That the game is less about just simply outgunning the opposing player and more about superior positioning when fighting. The Kill Cam, by it's very design concept, is completely antithetical to WW3's gunplay philosophy on the basis that it DIRECTLY reveals the Player's position to the Player they killed. So, if Player A kills Player B, then Player B can take that information to give to their Squad or Teammates in the area, or use it themselves. If Player B hasn't gotten off the Kill Cam, they seem to be able to keep watching Player A for an indefinite amount of time, and that in turn means Player B can give second by second updates to their Team as to what Player A is doing. What did Player B do to get this bountiful amount of knowledge they can use to help their Squad/Team in the area against Player A? Simple. They died to Player A...that is it. So, at the risk of sounding like an Elitist jerk, Player B is really getting information they DO NOT DESERVE. I'm not sure what this Kill Cam is suppose to be aiming for beyond the two things I've heard - Helping new Players & Preventing Hackusations. But, if you want to help new Players Learn the game, then Tutorials & them Just playing the game in general will be a better teacher than any Kill Cam. As for Hackusations...well, that failed day 1 of the VAT as I saw multiple People accuse People of cheating. It's a bad teacher, it's terribly unfair against players that are excelling during a match, it won't do anything to stop People from accusing other People of cheating, and if anything it's permitted cheating in of itself by revealing the Player's position, showing their movement, current health, weapon, armor, and etc etc... Keep it if you absolutely must (IE: The Company has a metaphorical gun held to it's head.) But, in this Veteran Player's opinion, it should be thrown in the trash faster than a soiled diaper. --- #3 - New Progression System Just going to shoot straight with you all - I HATE THIS PROGRESSION SYSTEM. If my hatred for it burned any brighter, It would blind People just staring at it. Where do I even start?.. We go from a system where the process is very simple- Play the game / Complete Challenges while playing the game to earn in-game currency using a set of select arbitrary starter weapons. Buy whatever Weapons, Attachments, Vehicles, Uniforms, Upgrades and etc etc...that interest you so long as you have the in-game currency to buy it. Repeat till you have nothing left. We unlocked stuff largely as we desired to unlock them, we forged our own path of progression, and on the whole it felt good in my opinion. I didn't feel like it was work, I didn't feel punished for getting new stuff, and I didn't feel punished for wanting to try new things. This new system however.... Start playing with a set of Arbitrary Weapons (just like above) We unlock what has been arbitrarily placed on a predetermined path. Whatever starter weapons we use/level up, those attachments we unlocked for them are NOT usable automatically on the new guns we unlocked, so now we have to earn those attachments - AGAIN, for EVERY gun, across EVERY category of weapons (unless the weapon doesn't have that particular attachment for some reason). Then we have the Strikes which get the exact same treatment with some only being able to generate a limited amount of Exp at a time while others can be used so long as you keep them going during the game. It doesn't feel like I'm earning rewards for playing the game, it feels like I'm just advancing to more, and more obstacles. Say what you want about the old progression system, at least those obstacles stopped being obstacles the moment they were out of the way. This system just looks to make me repeat the same obstacle multiple times under the guise of calling it progression. But, know what makes this even harder to deal with? I have a feeling we're absolutely stuck with this garbage system with zero chance of going back to the superior progression system....I could understand if we had a worse system in place and this was being done to make it feel less like work. But, it actually feels like someone said; You know what? Games should not be fun. They should be work - work and nothing but work till nothing is left to do but more work once it comes. But, I don't like to complain and not offer up a solution to remedy the problem (unless it's the dumpster fire called the Kill Cam.) So, here is what I suggest doing with this "Progression System." Rather than have us rank up each individual weapon to unlock attachments. Have us rank up the Weapon category and in turn have the attachments unlock for all of the Weapons of that category. Yes it will be still be a grind, but it won't be nearly as bad as having to do it for EVERY weapon in the game. Do the same for Strikes where it makes sense as well. So instead of having to rank up every IFV to get a certain upgrade, rank up the IFV category in general to have the upgrades unlocked available for all unlocked IFVs. Do that and the grind -might- not feel so bad. --- #4 - Weapons acting exceedingly uncharacteristically to their real life counterparts Now I get certain things have to be done for balance and some stuff gets fudged a little bit for variety. But, there is one thing I dislike very, very much with games like WW3, and that is when Guns act exceedingly uncharacteristically of themselves. Like if someone added the AN-94 to a game, but didn't give it the 2-round hyper burst, adding the Glock 18 to the game but it doesn't have a fully automatic fire mode, making the AA-12 a burst firing Shotgun, or Shotguns having reduced damage at close range just because they have a long barrel. Whatever it may be for other games, I really, really don't like it when it happens in WW3, and that is something we could see in the VAT. The biggest offenders in my opinion were- The Ragun Pistol - A semi-automatic Pistol in real life has burst fire in WW3 and no semi-automatic fire mode. The AK Alpha Assault Rifle - A semi-Automatic & Full Auto firing Assault Rifle has 2-round Burst, Full Auto, and no Semi-Automatic. The SMGs - Neither the VITYAZ or the Sig have semi-automatic features in game, but both have it in real life. On the bright side, the VITYAZ lost it's burst fire which is not something it has in real life. The SA80 "LMG" - The Assault Rifle turned Light Support Weapon (L86 LSW) doesn't even have the one basic feature it is known for having in it's Automatic Rifle/Sharpshooter Role and that is it's Semi-Automatic fire. The Shotgun Damage nerf at close-range for using Long barrels - Not actually a new thing by any stretch, but rather a returning feature from the Live version of the game. I cannot for the life of me understand how a Longer Barrel on a Shotgun (designed to improve accuracy & reach) equates to less damage at close range...Suspension of Disbelief can only go so far... Drawing back into focus though, I do not understand why these choices were made (except for the Long Barrel Shotgun thing. That I know has always been about "balance.") I don't know if there has been a loss in certain membership of the team that kept tabs on such things, maybe the NDA testers made a big fuss about the game being too close to realism some how, maybe there are concerns about guns acting the same generally speaking, or maybe facts be damned - video game got to video game. Whatever the reason ultimately is in the end - this all needs to be fixed in my opinion. However, I have more suggestions to offer. But, lets start simple and work our way down to the suggestions. Quick Fixes Give the Ragun it's semi-automatic fire mode and remove burst fire as a default fire option. Give the AK Alpha semi-automatic fire mode and remove it's 2-round burst fire as a default fire option. Give the VITYAZ & Sig both semi-automatic fire mode as part of their default fire options. Give the SA80 semi-automatic fire mode as part of it's default fire options. Remove Close-Range damage reduction on Shotguns with long barrels in exchange for Slower ADS speed and maybe a increase in Weapon sway. Extra Customization Feature suggestions Because there seems to be an interest in Weapon fire modes being different compared to their real life counterparts, I thought I would propose some REALISTIC options that can fulfill this interest, provide more Customization options for Players, can be balanced for gameplay reasons, and still fit the 2026 setting of the game. These suggestions are- (Please note: I'm working within the general framing of the 1st Veteran Alpha Test) Firing Mechanisms - Firing Mechanisms allow Players to change the firing mode of the listed Weapons below. They can convert some Weapons to fire semi-automatic & 3-round burst, some 2-round burst & fully automatic, and etc.. in one depending on their desire. Assault Rifles M4 MWS Firing Mechanism options (Default) M4 MWS Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & 3 round-burst fire. M4A1 MWS Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-Automatic & fully automatic fire. XM4A2 MWS Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic, 3-round burst, & fully automatic fire XM4A2 is technically fake. It's actually based on the M16A2 fire selector and fudged a bit to fit the WW3 M4 MWS concept (even though the M4 is a scaled down M16) AK Alpha Firing Mechanism options (Default) Alpha s1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic XAs2 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & 2-round burst XAs3 Firing Mechanism - Offers 2-round burst & fully automatic fire The XAs2 & 3 are fake, but based on Binary triggers and other factual trigger mechanisms Beryl Firing Mechanism options (Default) AK Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire PTE-BTs1 Firing Mechanism - Offers delayed 2-round burst & fully automatic fire Delayed 2-round burst as in it shoots 1 round with the first "trigger pull" and then fires 1 round after letting off the trigger (just like a Binary Trigger.) G36 Firing Mechanism options (Default) G3-s1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire G36C Firing mechanism - Offers semi-automatic, 2-round burst, & fully automatic G36K Firing mechanism - Offers semi-automatic, 3-round burst, & fully automatic 416 Firing Mechanism options (Default) 416s1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire 416-DKET1 Firing Mechanism - Offers delayed 2-round burst & fully automatic fire Delayed 2-round burst as in it shoots 1 round with the first "trigger pull" and then fires 1 round after letting off the trigger (just like a Binary Trigger.) MSBS-B Firing Mechanism options (Default) MSBS-S1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire MSBS-ET1 Firing Mechanism - Offers delayed 2-round burst & fully automatic fire Delayed 2-round burst as in it shoots 1 round with the first "trigger pull" and then fires 1 round after letting off the trigger (just like a Binary Trigger.) However. because the weapon is a bullpup, the delay should be much more noticeable. Submachine Guns VITYAZ Firing Mechanism options (Default) PP19 V-S1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire OTV19-BT Firing Mechanism - Offers delayed 2-round burst & fully automatic fire Delayed 2-round burst as in it shoots 1 round with the first "trigger pull" and then fires 1 round after letting off the trigger (just like a Binary Trigger.) SIG Firing Mechanism options (Default) SIG-S1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire XSIG-BT Firing Mechanism - Offers delayed 2-round burst & fully automatic fire Delayed 2-round burst as in it shoots 1 round with the first "trigger pull" and then fires 1 round after letting off the trigger (just like a Binary Trigger.) Pistols G17 Firing Mechanism options (Default) G-S17 Firing Mechanism - Offer Semi-automatic fire only G-S18 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & fully automatic fire The G-S18 may be a made up name. But, it will allow players to choose between having a Glock 17 or a Glock 18 essentially in 1 Gun (aka the Developers won't need to make the Glock 18 a standalone weapon, they can just use the Glock 17 as the base with both semi & fully automatic capability if players choose to use the G-S18 Firing Mechanism.) Ragun Firing Mechanism options (Default) R-S1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic fire only R-SS2 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi-automatic & 3-round burst fire Light Machineguns SA80 Firing Mechanism options (Default) SA80-S1 Firing Mechanism - Offers semi automatic & fully automatic fire SA80-ET1 Firing Mechanism - Offers delayed 2-round burst & fully automatic fire Delayed 2-round burst as in it shoots 1 round with the first "trigger pull" and then fires 1 round after letting off the trigger (just like a Binary Trigger.) However. because the weapon is a bullpup, the delay should be much more noticeable. In the end none of these would require any changes to the Weapon models themselves, so ideally it should be a (relatively speaking) quick change if implemented. As far as taking up or not taking up a customization slot goes...I would say it should, otherwise there would be no reason to not take some of these options. And with that out of the way, lets move on to the next matter... --- #5 - The new Strike System (largely) Alright I'm just going to shoot straight here - this new Strike System, it's almost entirely dumb. The only thing about it I'm on the fence about is Strikes being directly disconnected from the Loadouts so you can choose whatever Strike Loadout you want with whatever Weapon loadout. Outside of that though, the system is as dumb as can be. If a Player wants to run a pure Artillery loadout, they should have that choice. If a Player wants to run a Scanner Drone, Jammer Drone, & Quadrocopter, they should have that choice. If they want to run a balance of Scanner, Hellfire, and IFV, they should have that choice. By all means keep cooldowns in effect between Strikes that are similar where they make sense, but this is too much chipping at one of the key strengths of WW3 which is the Player customization aspect. If this is just temporary, fine. If this is planned to be permanent, trash a vast majority of it. Speaking of cooldowns, the list below in my opinion, are what Strikes should share cooldowns together. (Please note: I'm working within the general framing of the 1st Veteran Alpha Test) Shared Vehicle Cooldown Infantry Fighting Vehicles Armored Fighting Vehicles Tank Destroyers Main Battle Tanks Shared Unmanned Drone Cooldown Leviathan Helicopter Drone Shared Loitering Drone Cooldown Quadrocopter Suicide Drone Shared Artillery Cooldown High Explosive Anti-Armor Smoke Shared Bombing Run Cooldown Napalm JSOW JDAM (I believe) Shared Airstrike Cooldown Hellfire Stormbreaker Mephisto Shared Scanner UAV Cooldown Flying Eye Barracuda Shared Jammer UAV Cooldown Reaper UCAS-D --- #6 - Some of the changes to the Helicopter Drone I'm not entirely sure what the goal is exactly with the Helicopter Drone currently. The Unmanned Drone doesn't seem fast & agile anymore, it still seems to have paper thin armor, and even so much as hitting the ground with the force of a playful slap on the shoulder seems to amount to sticking your foot in lava....To make matters worse, we now have to deal with lock-on weapons that can two shot us without giving us any warnings (seemingly) to when we're locked on to, and we have no way to counter them outside of hoping we can steer them into a building in time before they hit us - and that is if we even know they're coming in the first place! Two bits of good news though is that the 7.62 machine guns and the guided rockets actually seem to be effective enough to justify using them...even though the 12.7 Heavy Machine guns still seem practically useless for anything short of killing Quads, Buggies, Leviathans, & other Helicopter Drones. To make matters even better (sarcastically) the sky box seems to be smaller (at least on Moscow) and passing over buildings basically amounts to crossing over a out of bounds zone (again, on Moscow.) So yeah, I'm not happy with all of these changes so far to Helicopter Drone. I'm hoping some of this is just simply Alpha Testing being Alpha Testing. That said though... If the Helicopter Drone is not going to be faster, have the same kind of agility it once had, and is going to be forced to travel closer to ground level. The Helicopter Drone is going to need to be buffed to justify the 5,000 BP cost just to field this beautiful creature. It will need- It's Armor buffed to be more resistant to incoming damage from smaller calibers than 7.62x52mm NATO (IE: Pistols, SMGs, & Assault Rifles would do notable less damage to the Helicopter Drone compared to the MGs, Battle Rifles, and other higher caliber weapons.) A warning sound effect when being targeted & fired upon by lock-on weapons like the Piorun (if it's not already planned and just not in yet.) A means of countering lock-on weapons more effectively (IE: Flares, countermeasure sweeps, or whatever.) Having it's damage taken hitting the ground at certain speeds adjusted to be a bit more forgiving Seriously, if I'm going to pay 5,000 BP to field the Helicopter Drone. The thing should at least have a chance to survive what amounts to getting a care bear stare thrown at it. --- #7 - The Abrams Tank needs more climbing power and seems to be able to aim it's main gun too high. While I get that the Abrams tank is suppose to be this Heavy MBT that dishes out damage & soaks damage...The vehicle seems to struggle to go up slopes slightly steeper than a wheel chair ramp. The Vehicle needs it's climbing power improved a bit. It doesn't need to climb over a hill exceptionally quickly, it just needs the ability to muscle it's way over the hill easier. And while we're on subject of the Abrams tank. The Vehicle's main gun seems to elevate at a very unrealistic angle that would probably be impossible for it (and maybe even other MBTs) to shoot at. This could just be me of course, it could also just be the Alpha testing being the Alpha testing...there could also be a problem and it's max gun elevation needs to be looked at again by whomever manages the Vehicle strikes in the team. --- #8 - RPG Ammo variety being removed If this has happened because stuff is still being worked on/balanced and such. Then I have no problems with it...HOWEVER, if this stuff has been completely removed from the game for good. I would really, really like to know why such an idea was deemed good or necessary? Because as far as I'm personally concerned, the more customization options WW3 has stripped from it, the less & less unique the game further becomes. --- #9 - RPG Ammo moved back to the Ammunition bag Another case of a bad idea was to move the RPG Ammo back to the Ammunition Bag. Yes, I understand it's technically ammunition. But, the reason it was done that way was to reduce RPG spam & give Players more of a reason to use the Equipment bag over the Ammunition & Health bags. In the VAT it seemed like Players were more focused on using the Ammo & Health bags above all else. So, in my opinion, move the RPG Ammo back to the Equipment bag, and force players to make a choice - Keep their Primary Weapon topped off as much as possible, or keep the RPG/Whatever future Special Weapons we get topped off as much as possible. --- #10 - The return of those "strategically placed" resupply containers Alright - honest question time. Is there an active element in the Development team that is trying to weaken Squad/Teamplay in this game as much as possible? I get sometimes Players cannot drop their bags to help a teammate/squadmate out either because the thing is on cooldown, maybe their really focused on a fight they're engaged in, or generally anything that distracts them from helping their Squad or Team out. But, from a Player standpoint trying to understand the intentions behind Development choices, it seems as if you're trying to discourage Squad/Teamplay, because you don't foster it by putting things into the game/keeping things in the game (like these Resupply Containers placed around the maps) that actively work against Squad/Teamplay, and continues to foster this culture of "It's my (insert type here) Bag, get your own!" in WW3. Since so many different elements from Battlefield & CoD are being thrown into WW3, how about adding the one thing that wouldn't be such a massive downgrade for the game? Make it where if Player A needs X supplies & Player B has the bag that provides X supplies, then Player A can take those supplies from Player B's Bag directly while it's off cooldown even if Player B hasn't dropped the bag on the ground, and in turn give Player B Battlepoints for indirectly assisting his Team/Squad. Then after that is added, completely remove the "strategically placed" resupply containers from the game entirely. Is it exactly engaging Squad/Team play? No, not at all. But, it's (relatively speaking) a easy remedy for the past problems of People complaining that nobody was dropping resupply bags. With the Player whose bag is just randomly being taken from by an ally, they're at least being given Battlepoints in exchange for it, so it's not like they're getting absolutely nothing out of it happening, and the amount taken can depend upon the usual factors we see in game when taking from bags that have actually been deployed on the ground. --- #11 - High Magnification Scope Flashlights (aka Scope Glare/Glint.) Oh boy another Battlefield feature that is done obnoxiously...While Scope Glare/Glint is a very real thing Soldiers have to deal with when using such optics, there is technology that can be used to counter Scope Glare/Glint which is anti-reflection honeycombing, and of course certain techniques can be used to counter it. Unfortunately I wasn't able to test this to any real meaningful degree, but it seemed like High Magnification scopes were glowing brighter than a Search Light at night no matter where Characters were on the map. I'm NOT opposed to having Scope Glare/Glint in the game so much as I'm opposed to there being no way to counter it short of just never using a High Magnification sight, and so far from what I can tell there was no way to counter it. However, because I didn't get to reliably test all of it, I'm willing to entertain that maybe there is more refinement to this than first meets the eye. But, if there isn't a way to counter it to any degree and High Magnification Scopes ALWAYS give off Scope Glare/Glint no matter what you do...Then the system needs to either be improved to where Players can use/learn to use the environment to better counter Scope Glare/Glint, or just throw the Scope Glare/Glint system in the trash as Sniper Players already have a Kill Cam that will give away their position if they manage to gain a kill, they don't need even more unfair game systems levied against them. As a matter of fact, if the Kill Cam wasn't in the game, I probably would have been more indifferent towards High-Mag Scope glare, as I already said; it's a very real thing Soldiers have to deal with. --- #12 - New Squad Spawn System (Largely) I'm going to guess there is a White Board in the WW3 Development meeting room and on it are the words "Make Squad Leaders less important." It was already a pain when whole Squads could spawn in suddenly on their Squad Leader & the Squad Leader could spawn in on anyone in the Squad to start the spawn spam at any moment. We didn't need everyone in the Squad to become a catalyst for spawn spamming. On the bright side of this however...at least Squad members cannot spawn in when their Ally is under attack or is inside of a Jammer Drone's area of influence (no sarcasm, I actually do approve of this part of the New Squad Spawn System.) Suggestion for improvement - Keep it where the Squad Leader can have their Squad Spawn in on them. But, if the Squad Leader dies, the Squad Leader will need to hoof it back to their Squad in one form or another, thus making it very important for the Squad Leader to not be recklessly attacking/defending objectives. --- #13 - Removal of the Meta Game & War Map Not very happy to see the Meta Game & War Map being removed. But, I can understand if they have been taken down to be redeveloped later down the road. If they have been taken down for good and there is zero plans to ever bring it back...Oh boy do I not approve of that and it will be just one more bit of WW3's unique characteristics being stripped away for the worse. ---
  12. Enjoy the video! --Things of Interest in the Video-- Face options New Face options With our old Soldier friend making their appearance with our new Soldier John being seen again, we also have two new faces joining the party in the form of Xin & Rafal it seems. Uniform options New Country Identification Tags on Uniform options While this is a very small addition to the game admittedly, this is a very welcome one to someone like me who attempts to (9 times out of 10) keep their Soldier as visually accurate to their real life counterparts as much as possible. Sure some were very obvious like the Bundswehr, Spartan Vest, Polish Combat Pants, and etc etc...It's still nice to have that extra layer of confirmation. New Uniform Descriptions Seems the different uniform parts will also be getting some deeper descriptions as well, that way you could really take some things into consideration when making your Soldier. Want your Soldier to look like they've been in a Mountain patrol unit? OLV might be your ideal pick. New Uniform parts with Jackets, Pants, & Gloves from Korea, Japan, & Poland. (Possible) New Camo Patterns New Veteran Beret(?) Map Stuff Brief glimpse of the DMZ Map? A small glimpse of what looks like a new map coming to the game, possibly the DMZ map based in Korea seen long, long, looong ago. Weapon Stuff K2C1 A possible glimpse of the South Korean K2C1 with a 20 round Magazine PBS-4 Suppressor in Development(?) A glimpse of a possible new Russian Suppressor in the works. New AK Alpha Magazine It seems the Alpha has gotten a new Magazine and it seems like it's the same one as the VEPR-18. The only thing really strange though is that the Alpha shoots a 7.62x39 round and the VEPR-18 shoots the 5.45x39 round of ammunition. It might just be a new magazine for the Alpha, but it might be a sign of possible Caliber Conversion coming to WW3. Only time can tell ultimately. UI Stuff Shop & Battle Pass --- Think I found everything of major note. The video was kind of short, but lots of neat little things to be found in it.
  13. I, as an American, cannot relate at this time. But! I get exactly what you mean, even if I cannot recall a single game based in the United States that has gone to the lengths of recreation of an area that I have personally played. Most of the time People seem to go with "Anywhere USA." Yeah I really like what they did with that building from what we can see and hope it will help alleviate one of my main gripes about Berlin which is a lack of verticality. Give that Berlin doesn't have the same amount of open space as Warsaw or Moscow has, the lack of verticality has really made Berlin feel excessively small (sort of the reason it rates as my 2nd least favorite map.) So, here is hoping that the map rework will improve things long term. :)
  14. Enjoy the video! --Things of Interest in the Video-- Full Map Rework General stuff Currently it is hard to tell how far exactly the Berlin Map rework has gone between the different game modes, but we can tell for sure that Berlin's rework is extensive beyond what was originally seen in the Developer Update Video. Areas of the map have been completely reworked with new places for Players to explore/fight in, new lighting & textures (which we already knew), new models & objects placed around the map to offer cover, strong points to hold, and so much more. Here are some screenshots to show some of the changes to the map. One thing I find rather strange is how night & day different the map is designed between the game modes. Here are two screenshots of what I mean, one from the Developer Update video, and one from this recent map spotlight video. Some changes are to be expected to make the map fit the gameplay a bit better, but some of these changes seem like head scratchers. Game Modes Warzone (?) Breakthrough After watching the video enough, I've come to the conclusion that the video is taking place on the Breakthrough version of Berlin as multiple M-Com objective points have been spotted. As to which M-Com points they are exactly, that remains to be seen. Team Deathmatch (?) - Not a whole lot to really bring up, the video was rather short, and we only really seem to have seen the changes made to the Breakthrough version of Berlin rather than Berlin for all of the game modes. I could be wrong also of course, but it does seem that way so far. Overall it looks a lot nicer with the colors popping out, the new lighting, and such. How it's all going to impact gameplay however, that remains to be seen. Still cool stuff all the same!
  15. I'm purely just not interested in seeing it added. I already feel players are given far more information than they deserve just because they died (short of who their killer was & if it's a Teammate that needs to be punished.) This new one is taking the extra step by showing Players where their Attacker is, the direction they're currently facing, and where exactly they're moving to (if at all.) It's being pitched as a learning tool for players and apparently as a mean countering Hackusations. Players have adapted just fine without this sort of kill cam and Hackusations will continue no matter what sort of information is given. Some Players just get overly salty and call Hacks as a means of not accepting they either did something dumb or they got bested in the moment. Another reason I have a problem with this coming Kill Cam is that it completely counters one of the core design philosophies of the game and that is the belief of superior positioning on the map. (EG: The person on the high ground is in a more advantageous position to engage enemies on the hill on the opposing side compared to their teammate who is down in the gully between the hills.) The Kill Cam revealing your position actually endangers your superior positioning to the enemy because the People you killed can report your exact location. Now that superior position you were using has become compromised and it's because you killed a Player in it. It's not because they spotted you before they died, it's not because a UAV/Barracuda/whatever was in the area revealing it. No, your position is revealed because you killed a player and they took that information (that they only got because they died) to give it to their team to expose your flank on them. But, if there is no choice but to accept further undeserved information being given, then I will just accept that I will need to try to rally Community support for a "Hardcore", "Authentic", or whatever sub-game mode for Warzone, Breakthrough, TDM, and whatever other future game modes are added.
×
×
  • Create New...